\section{Scientific Reflections}
\label{sec:scientificreflections}

Through this research we have mainly relied on social constructivism, and so our findings are generalizations and reflections based on different mindsets and existing literature. We are aware that our findings are not objective truths, but they mirror the probability for certain issues regarding standardization within Symbian and give a scientifically well-founded reasoning for these issues. We have used qualitative methods to analyze how different standardization interests have influenced the diffusion and competitiveness of Symbian and how it has affected the ecosystem and Symbian's ability to innovate. \bigskip

\noindent From a hermeneutics point of view, during this research we have moved from one standing-point to a new one. Our understanding of our subject of matter has developed and our biases have changed, and so with our new prejudice we can conduct further extending research. \bigskip

\noindent By using inductive reasoning we have created new hypotheses, for example that there was a change in the conception of a smartphone by the emergence of iOS and Android - we call it a shift from a hardware oriented paradigm to a software oriented paradigm.

Deductive reasoning have revealed that a standardization perspective was useful to understand the underlying forces which dragged Symbian towards its extinction.

So, we have actually elaborated on our research question and answered it in a way that fits in the social constructive paradigm. \bigskip

\subsection{Research Inadequacy}
As we mentioned in section \ref{subsec:limitations} (Limitations), we would probably run into some methodological constraints, which would prevent us from producing scientifically reliable results. And some of these constraints actually took place. \bigskip

\noindent The main inadequacy of our research is the number of interviewees and their relation to Symbian. We have interviewed two key persons from within the Symbian consortium and a professor who has worked as a consultant in Symbian and who has done an extensive amount of research on Symbian. To facilitate a proper investigation of our research question we should have interviewed key persons from the shareholders of Symbian, and especially Nokia would have been interesting to interview and compare to the statements of David Wood and David Levin, who explicitly blame Nokia for Symbian's loss of market share. We actually also tried to contact other key people who had relation with Symbian or other shareholders. The people we tried to get in contact with were: 

\begin{description}

\item[John R. Kristensen:] Divisional director for Nokia's satellite and cable TV division.
\item[Steen Thygesen:] Director, platform solutions, Forum Nokia.
\item[Andy Brannan:] Vice president of Nokia's SOSCO business and before that Executive Vice president of sales \& Customer Operations and a board member in Symbian.
\item[Jens Raarup:] Director, head of HW Design at Nokia.
\item[Karsten Vandrup:] Various senior management positions in Nokia Corporation in Nokia HQ in Finland and Nokia R\&D center in Copenhagen.
\item[Peter Ib:] Managing director at Nokia.
\item[Steffen Ring:] Senior Director, Global Government Affairs at Motorola Solutions Inc.
\item[Colly Myers:] First CEO of Symbian.
\item[Niggel Clifford:] CEO of Symbian from 2005-2008.

\end{description}

\noindent Although we contacted these people, we were not able to conduct interviews with them because some of them had a too busy schedule and some of them did not want to talk about the topic as they were bound to NDA(Non disclosure agreements). If we were not bound with the time frame of the project, we could have had some more interviews to explain our research.